KAMAL AHMAD ALIAS SUKHARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the order dated 13.9.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa in Complaint Case No. 174. -C of 2002 by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 504, 295 -A and 295/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(v)(x)(iv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and has committed the case to the Court of the Special Judge, Nalanda.

(2.) HEARD .

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire allegation made in the complaint petition is false. There was no statue of B.R. Ambedkar at the alleged place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. In fact the complianant -opposite party No. 2 who claims himself to be the Chairman of the so called "Ambedkar Nyaya Chetna Vichar Munch" tried to install the statue in order to grab the land which was objected to by the local people including the petitioners. The police was immediately informed. Sanha Entry No. 0458 dated 24.2.2002 (Annexure -2) was made. This issue was also raised in the Bihar Legislative Assembly and Bihar Vid -han Parishad. The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda asked the Officer Incharge to enquire into the incident. The Ofticer Incharge submitted his report (Annexure 3) that there was no statue of Baba Ambedkar at the place of occurrence rather the same persons tried to install statue there. He further submitted that in the daily "Hindustan" (Annexure -4) a news was also published that a statue was being installed by some people in order to grab public land. He further submitted that when some controversy arose on the point of installation of statue on the disputed site a Committee was constituted to sort out the problem of installation of statue at a suitable place. The opposite party No. 2 also took part in the meeting and agreed that the statue will be installed at a suitable place selected by the Committee. This also shows that there was no statue at the place of occurrence and there was no question of any incident as alleged. The petitioners have also filed the relevant extracts of the proceedings (Annexure -5).